Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:10:59.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

AN ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON PROJECTIVITY OF MODULES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2014

CHRIS HOLSTON ,
SERGIO R. LÓPEZ-PERMOUTH ,
JOSEPH MASTROMATTEO  and
JOSÉ E. SIMENTAL-RODRÍGUEZ
CHRIS HOLSTON
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics. Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA e-mails: holston@ohio.edu, lopez@ohio.edu, jm424809@ohio.edu, js224910@ohio.edu
SERGIO R. LÓPEZ-PERMOUTH
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics. Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA e-mails: holston@ohio.edu, lopez@ohio.edu, jm424809@ohio.edu, js224910@ohio.edu
JOSEPH MASTROMATTEO
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics. Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA e-mails: holston@ohio.edu, lopez@ohio.edu, jm424809@ohio.edu, js224910@ohio.edu
JOSÉ E. SIMENTAL-RODRÍGUEZ
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics. Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA e-mails: holston@ohio.edu, lopez@ohio.edu, jm424809@ohio.edu, js224910@ohio.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We approach the analysis of the extent of the projectivity of modules from a fresh perspective as we introduce the notion of relative subprojectivity. A module M is said to be N-subprojective if for every epimorphism g : B → N and homomorphism f : M → N, there exists a homomorphism h : M → B such that gh = f. For a module M, the subprojectivity domain of M is defined to be the collection of all modules N such that M is N-subprojective. We consider, for every ring R, the subprojective profile of R, namely, the class of all subprojectivity domains for R modules. We show that the subprojective profile of R is a semi-lattice, and consider when this structure has coatoms or a smallest element. Modules whose subprojectivity domain is as smallest as possible will be called subprojectively poor (sp-poor) or projectively indigent (p-indigent), and those with co-atomic subprojectivy domain are said to be maximally subprojective. While we do not know if sp-poor modules and maximally subprojective modules exist over every ring, their existence is determined for various families. For example, we determine that artinian serial rings have sp-poor modules and attain the existence of maximally subprojective modules over the integers and for arbitrary V-rings. This work is a natural continuation to recent papers that have embraced the systematic study of the injective, projective and subinjective profiles of rings.

Keywords

16D4016D5016D80
Type
Research Article
Information
Glasgow Mathematical Journal , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 83 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Glasgow Mathematical Journal Trust 2014 

References

REFERENCES

1.Alahmadi, A. N., Alkan, M. and López-Permouth, S. R., Poor modules, the opposite of injectivity, Glasgow Math. J. 52A (2010), 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Amin, I., Yousif, M. and Zeyada, N., Soc-injective rings and modules, Comm. Algebra 33 (11) (2005), 4229–4250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Anderson, F. W. and Fuller, K. R., Rings and categories of modules (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Assem, I., Simson, D. and Skowroński, A., Elements of the representation theory of associative algebras. Vol. 1: Techniques of representation theory, London Math. Soc. Student Texts, vol. 65 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Aydoğdu, P. and López-Permouth, S. R., An alternative perspective on injectivity of modules, J. Algebra 338(2011), 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Baer, R., Abelian groups without elements of finite order, Duke Math. J. 3 (1) (1937), 68–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Bass, H., Finitistic dimension and a homological characterization of semiprimary rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 95 (1960), 466–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Chase, S. U., Direct products of modules, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 97 (3) (1960), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Clark, J., Lomp, C., Vanaja, N. and Wisbauer, R., Lifting modules: Supplements and projectivity in module theory, Frontiers in Mathematics (Birkhäuser-Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, 2006).Google Scholar
10.Er, N., López-Permouth, S. R. and Sökmez, N., Rings whose modules have maximal or minimal injectivity domains, J. Algebra 330 (1) (2011), 404–417.Google Scholar
11.Faith, C., Algebra II: Ring theory, Grundlehren Math. Wiss., vol. 191 (Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Fuchs, L., Infinite Abelian groups, vol. 2 (Academic Press, Waltham, MA, 1973).Google Scholar
13.Holston, C., López-Permouth, S. R. and Orhan Ertaş, N., Rings whose modules have maximal or minimal projectivity domains, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 216 (3) (2012), 673–678.Google Scholar
14.Lam, T. Y., Lectures on modules and rings (Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.López-Permouth, S. R. and Simental, J. E., Characterizing rings in terms of the extent of the injectivity and projectivity of their modules, J. Algebra 362 (2012), 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Mohamed, S. H. and Müller, B. J., Continuous and discrete modules (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990).Google Scholar
17.Stenström, B., Rings of quotients, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1975).Google Scholar
18.Teply, M., Right hereditary, right perfect rings are semiprimary, Advances in Ring Theory, Trends in Mathematics (Birkhäuser, Boston, MA, 1996), 313–316.Google Scholar